This site went live in October 2010 to flesh out technology and legality of CYBER PRIVATEERING as I wrote DADDY'S LITTLE FELONS. The novel pays homage to my old friend Judge Pat Brian, who died of pancreatic cancer on June 28, 2010.To get updates as new articles are posted, enter your email below:

To get notices of new blogs via email, click here:

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

On June 4th (read the article here), I shared the remarkable news that just two men could pretty well get together and name our next POTUS. No, neither of them is Rush Limbaugh nor Barak Obama. 68% of the random sample surveyed said they'd support a candidate endorsed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Gates I can understand, since his selfless generosity in giving away billions clearly marks him as one with the world's best interests at heart. I guess Mr. Buffett's challenge to the high rollers to give away lots of their net worth pays his dues into that club, too.

So what'll it be, Bill and Warren? Who has the brain power and the courage to step up and save our dysfunctional national family? If you guys agree on it, then it's a done deal.

I have a candidate you should look at, and I've been breaking my pick trying to find people to facilitate some kind of introduction. Alas, nobody who knows either of you two is willing to broker an introduction. I guess those are chips nobody wants to risk, and who can really blame them. I can't tell you how often somebody calls me out of the blue and asks for help setting up a meeting with Oracle's Larry Ellison or Salesforce's Marc Benioff. Half of me seriously doubts I could accomplish the intro, the the other half says out loud, "And you think I'll waste these chips for some stranger?" Yep, no wonder I haven't found a broker.

So directly to Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett, I've got a candidate whose elevator pitch will blow your mind. Let me give you a one-paragraph elevator pitch, the goal of which is to set up a five-minute telephone call with my guy. Worst case, you'll be entertained. Best case, you'll want to nominate him for election in 2016 as well as for the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

There is a fine line between paranoia and plain stupidity. Sure, it sounds like a jim-cracking-dandy good idea to back up your files to the firms advertising on talk radio. Insure those priceless photos and your address book for less than $5 per month. What could go wrong? Two options give me a little heartburn.

First, read the privacy policy and the terms of service of the backup service. Basically, they can screw up big time and your only recourse is a refund of the money you've paid them for the backup service. Not to mention the common disclaimer below:

[Vendor Name Here] will not disclose Your personal information, including the contents of Your Account, to third parties unless disclosure is necessary to comply with the law.

I'm not planning to engage in illegal activities, but it's not like I trust Big Brother, either.

Second, a more troubling story appeared today in Computerworld (read it here). They report a "Russian forensic firm's tool" can access iCloud backups. To my mind, this "data exhaust" presents the very real possibility that foreign governments and/or crooks have targeted all the cloud backup firms with BPTs (that's Brilliant Persistent Threats) designed to let them troll all privately stored files. The same reason several governments will not buy computer equipment from China-based companies like Huawei and Lenovo ought to be reason enough for those same governments to forbid their employees to use cloud backup services: competition, foreign governments, or mere thieves will find a way to monetize your data assets. Guaranteed.

And speaking about guarantees, I have yet to see any cloud backup services advertise significant insurance for losses you might incur due to your files being grabbed by The Bad Guys. Quite to the contrary, their terms of service agreement has you pretty thoroughly indemnifying them from any responsibility for protecting your data.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Three years ago (read my article here), I gave eight reasons why Israel should become the first cyber privateer haven. Data exhaust from today indicates that the Israelis might just be our last chance for coherent worldwide cyber security.The data points:

The New York Times verifies massive institutionalized Chinese cybertheft (see the story here).

On June 2nd, the New York Times essentially verified that the complete U.S. strategy for dealing with cybercrime is to continue playing a defense-only game (see the story here) with DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) holding a contest to see which genius can come up with technology to detect intrusions and close the doors on the fly (Was that Vince Lombardi shrieking from his grave?)

All the superpowers are playing the cyberspy-vs-cyberspy "plausible deniability" game. The U.S. is telling China, "We only spy on your government, not your businesses." To which China replies, "Give us a break!" The Russians are at least smart enough to go where the money is with some pretty sophisticated cyberthievery. The Brits are keeping their mouths shut and plodding along to create the world's biggest CCTV police state. The French are keeping their mouths shut. The Germans are assuming all their cellphone conversations are being personally monitored by Barak Obama himself. Australia, a nation I thought could host licensed and bonded cyber privateers because of their remoteness, seems to be more concerned with shutting down their home-grown hacker community. South Korea won't do anything to jeopardize the missile defense shield they want from the U.S. North Korea is playing the "Hey-is-THIS-crazy-enough-for-ya?" game. The only purpose being served by Islamic countries is to get the blame for what in reality are false-flag operations created by the big boys (ie; The Syrian Electronic Army). And Japan seems to have lost the national self confidence to do much of anything. That leaves…drum roll…Israel.

It's time for Israel to step up to a foreordination that's been in The Books for thousands of years.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Last month, I was retained by an unknown and non-political potential presidential candidate to help him determine if he had a shot at winning the presidency in 2016. Conventional wisdom would say "No way in hell!" However, I fielded a "Rhetorical Wargame" survey and was absolutely astounded by the resulting analytics. Just two sets of factors framed the random survey:

In 2016, the main focus of the voter must be our economy and the gridlock in Congress; and

I provided a thorough list of politicians, economists, businessmen, and entertainers who might endorse this candidate, so he wouldn't be written off as "just another nut job" by a VERY skeptical electorate.

The key to a "Rhetorical Wargame" is to ask the hypothetical question at the beginning and at the end of the survey: "Would you consider a candidate whose platform was…?" Between the two identical hypothetical questions, the survey spelled out the details of the platform AND asked the respondents (in a multiple-choice/choose-all-that-apply pull-down list) to choose what prominent endorsements would put this candidate over the top. I expected a one or two percent difference between all the potential endorsers. I was dead wrong.

Two individuals—non politicians but obviously trusted by American voters—could endorse and virtually guarantee my candidate could get elected in 2016. Net net: 68% of the voters would elect this candidate on the basis of a joint endorsement by these two men. And almost as interesting, 75% of the audience would vote AGAINST this candidate if were endorsed by any one of another half-dozen people.

No, I don't choose to share the names of these two King Makers. Maybe later, grasshopper. After I see whether or not my candidate can meet with them and consider some unusual possibilities.

Search This Blog

Daddy's Little Felons, an ebook with cyberwar hyperlinks for only $2.99 from Amazon

Mitch Rapp and Jack Reacher, meet Morgan Rapier! He starts, wages, and wins a world-wide cyberwar. He also solves several murders, becomes the #1 U.S. Navy SEAL recruiter, and gets his Islamic school chum into a whole lot of trouble. All in one week! Dedicated to my late friend, district court judge Pat Brian.

DESTROYING ANGEL, an ebook with hyperlinks for only $2.99 at Amazon

Meet the real…Destroying Angel.

Background: Welcome black hats, white hats and cyber swashbucklers

The Revolutionary War was fought, financed, and pretty well WON by bonded privateers, legalized pirates who were given Letters of Marque and Reprisal by the Continental Congress and authorized to attack, capture and monetize British ships. The purpose of this site is to explore the possibility of a modern-day doctrine much like the Monroe Doctrine, by means of which the U.S. government could legally and, more importantly, effectively stop international hackers. Current cybercrime law is not only ineffective, but downright stupid. My Linux servers are attacked hundreds of times a day (mostly from China and former USSR domains), yet if I retaliate against those servers with some creative technology at my disposal (I know some VERY smart guys), then I am in violation of federal law and subject to some onerous penalties. We need more than a new law. We need a new international doctrine. I call it The Morgan Doctrine, named after Morgan Rapier, a fictional character I've created (hey, this is my way of establishing ownership of the concept, should it ever see the light of day).

Why a new international doctrine? Simply, nothing else will work. Introduced on December 2, 1823, the Monroe Doctrine told the world to keep their hands off the Americas. Combine this with current legal thinking on "hot pursuit" of fugitives. In 1917 the US Army went into Mexico after Pancho Villa. More recently, in 1960 Israeli Mossad agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from Argentina. Granted, much of the world regards the Eichmann adventure as a violation of international law. I don't share that opinion and therefore use it as the third leg of my Monroe-Pancho-Aldof platform for The Morgan Doctrine.

If someone comes into your home and attacks or attempts to rob you, you may shoot them dead. You may do so as long as they expire on your property. But what about cyber criminals? They attack you in your home from their homes. Retaliate in kind, and you go to jail. The Morgan Doctrine states simply that if you attack my computers (or my banking assets held in US-based computers), then under a certain set of well-defined conditions, a licensed and bonded "cyber privateer" may attack you in your home country and split the proceeds with the U.S. government. For the sake of argument, let's call it a 50-50 split (heh heh).

Right now, American law enforcement is completely unequipped to deal with the sheer number international cyber hackers. Sure, I could report each of the thousand daily attacks to the FBI, as could the millions of other attackees in the USA. But the volume of such reports would make any meaningful resolution laughable. Not to mention that the FBI has no jurisdiction outside the USA. Yet to make such "enforcement" profitable to recognized (ie, "bonded" "deputized") privateers, as Heath Ledger's Joker said in his last role, "Now you're talking!" You raid our bank accounts, we raid yours. You make money from off-shore child pornography, we're going to loot your bank accounts and, with some REALLY creative black hat operations, you will be taken off the grid worldwide to the extent that you'll not even complete a cell phone conversation for the remainder of your miserable depraved life. Okay, that last part probably won't fly, but you get my drift.

The purpose of this site is to explore the mechanics, legalities and practicality of The Morgan Doctrine.

And I will be the sole arbiter of whether or not your comments get posted. As Mel Brooks wrote, "It's good to be king."